NYTimes: Lack of Transmission Lines Is Restricting Wind Power

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...SION-popup.jpg

Texas is in the midst of a wind-power boom, and at the heart of it lies a conundrum: While plenty of ranchers are eager to host wind turbines, few want the unsightly high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry the power to distant cities running through their property.

The lack of transmission lines — and the relatively low price of natural gas — has thwarted the ambitions of wind-power advocates to expand the use of this alternative energy source in Texas.

To encourage others, the state is moving forward on a contentious project to erect $5 billion worth of transmission wires to connect the turbines to the cities that need power. On Thursday, state regulators met in Austin and approved the route of a controversial line that will run about 140 miles through the Hill Country, one of the state’s most scenic regions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us...gewanted=print

===============

A classic conflict of private vs public interest, with both sides having legitimate, honest objectives.

Or maybe the landowners are trying increase their shakedown of taxpayers.

I hate Rick Perry with all my heart.

Bring govt. funds in and in a few years we can bitch about the greedy farmers getting rich off of wind towers erected in their front yard.

Power lines are expensive. I wonder if the cost of transmission was ever really disclosed on this so called promising technology?

I've heard that the volts would require a major electrical upgrade to residential area's should that more people buy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I've heard that the volts would require a major electrical upgrade to residential area's should that more people buy them.

---

Well, power capacity is a combination of volts x amps. The wire size determines the current capacity (amps). The greater the voltage, the less resistance of the line affects power loss. I understand these things, and for the capacity of wind power, it really isn't as sweet of a rose as most people think.

For wind power, the best way to do it would be to have them generate three phase AC, step it up and rectify it to DC, then only a single wire is needed. It could be buried, but damn. That gets real expensive for High voltage.

I'm sorry, I meant Volt's as in Chevy Volt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sickdsm

I'm sorry, I meant Volt's as in Chevy Volt.

---

LOL...

Sorry, but we were talking power transmission.

I know, i was just reminded about how some of this green electrical energy has hidden costs that no one seems to tout.

Where were You People when Repugs built the Interstate Highway System which defaces and divides the landscape much more than power transmission lines?

Do You People support any expense for infrastructure construction and (fatally absent, eg, PG&E gas lines) maintenance or are You People myopically against everything because it has a cost?

anybody know which parts of the Hill Country they are proposing to run lines through?

http://clearviewalliance.org/docs/LC...ighlighted.pdf

and lots of LCRA links:

http://clearviewalliance.org/resources.html

A map showing where wind and solar plants are/will be, and from where the transmission lines will originate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/maps/TX.jpg

http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/maps/index.cfm

Driving west on the Hill Country-defacing/dividing IH10, one can see plenty of electric power lines for non-renewable/non-green energy.

I bet the residents of the rural service areas don't pay anywhere near their proportion of the costs of those lines. Like all rural telephone/electric service areas, the bubbas are heavily subsidized by city slickers.

Wonder how they got the computer lines in to your cave
boutons. You dig a ditch for them to lay them into it.
I doubt it, that entails work on your part and you think
government should have done it with our tax dollars.
I doubt seriously if you work. You are always on here
showing your ignorance. And telling us how great the
European governments are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Where were You People when Repugs built the Interstate Highway System which defaces and divides the landscape much more than power transmission lines?

Do You People support any expense for infrastructure construction and (fatally absent, eg, PG&E gas lines) maintenance or are You People myopically against everything because it has a cost?

---

Who are you arguing against? The ghost in your head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

A map showing where wind and solar plants are/will be, and from where the transmission lines will originate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/state/maps/TX.jpg

http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/maps/index.cfm

Driving west on the Hill Country-defacing/dividing IH10, one can see plenty of electric power lines for non-renewable/non-green energy.

I bet the residents of the rural service areas don't pay anywhere near their proportion of the costs of those lines. Like all rural telephone/electric service areas, the bubbas are heavily subsidized by city slickers.

---

So there's maybe two plants in the hill country proper? There are probably already lines close to those sites anyway.

That's a region-sized straw man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Where were You People when Repugs built the Interstate Highway System which defaces and divides the landscape much more than power transmission lines?

Do You People support any expense for infrastructure construction and (fatally absent, eg, PG&E gas lines) maintenance or are You People myopically against everything because it has a cost?

---

I support infrastructure costs that have a clear benefit. There are too many other expenses the federal government should not be doing. In the case of green energy, I don't yet see the payoff for such government expenditures. In the past, we needed the government to build huge projects. Now corporations are large enough to burden the expense if they see a profit. If they don't see a profit, why should government pay for a losing proposition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I support infrastructure costs that have a clear benefit. There are too many other expenses the federal government should not be doing. In the case of green energy, I don't yet see the payoff for such government expenditures. In the past, we needed the government to build huge projects. Now corporations are large enough to burden the expense if they see a profit. If they don't see a profit, why should government pay for a losing proposition?

---

Or they could do both like Immelt at GE. Buy the President and have your companies investments be doubled/tripled by federal subsidies.

Why not store it in energy cubes like the decepticons in transformers :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

Why not store it in energy cubes like the decepticons in transformers :D

---

I like the ZPM's better.

Quote:

---

Central and Eastern European countries are moving to disconnect their power lines from Germany’s during the windiest days. That’s when they get flooded with energy, echoing struggles seen from China to Texas over accommodating the world’s 200,000 windmills.






Renewable energy around the world is causing problems because unlike oil it can’t be stored, so when generated it must be consumed or risk causing a grid collapse. At times, the glut can be so great that utilities pay consumers to take the power and get rid of it.


“Germany is aware of the problem, but there is not enough political will to solve the problem because it’s very costly,” Pavel Solc, Czech deputy minister of industry and trade, said in an interview. “So we’re forced to make one-sided defensive steps to prevent accidents and destruction.”

---

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...ut-energy.html

interesting, Those things can be turned off at the source kind of like putting a car in park. Pretty simple solution from a technology standpoint. They could shut them down on really windy days just with an automated cell phone call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

Why not store it in energy cubes like the decepticons in transformers :D

---

yeah, but how do we get it from west texas ranches to san antonio? Trucks. Now the "green" is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

yeah, but how do we get it from west texas ranches to san antonio? Trucks. Now the "green" is gone.

---

Electric catapults. Really big ones.

You guys obviously haven't driven west on I10 lately. Pass Sonora and you are almost never out of sight of a wind farm until you hit El Paso. seems like every caprock has it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Electric catapults. Really big ones.

---

Transforming ones????

A new transmission line from west TX bringing wind power to SA area is going up along IH10. It appears to terminate at a substation on the other side of IH10 from Comfort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Transforming ones????

---

We have the technology. They could be monster trucks until they transform and toss energy cubes into sub orbital flight.

I'm curious.

A question for you Anthropogenic Climate Change guys out there.

As we tap off ever increasing amounts of wind power, aren't you concerned about how we change the climate?

I feel dumber for just having read that last post by WC.

Anyway, there's been a lot of new power line infrascture on I10 west of SA in the past few years. I make that drive at least a couple of times a year and there's been obvious changes. I'm really surprised that power generation that is too high at times is a problem but thats probably just because I never thought about it. I'm sure some engineers can put their heads together and figure it out, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm curious.

A question for you Anthropogenic Climate Change guys out there.

As we tap off ever increasing amounts of wind power, aren't you concerned about how we change the climate?

---

Why don't you share your thoughts on the matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm curious.

A question for you Anthropogenic Climate Change guys out there.

As we tap off ever increasing amounts of wind power, aren't you concerned about how we change the climate?

---

not sure if serious....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Why don't you share your thoughts on the matter?

---

I'm your huckleberry

i'd say that the change would be as infintesimal as as anything else we do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I'm your huckleberry

i'd say that the change would be as infintesimal as as anything else we do.

---

What do you base that on? Wishful thinking a la WC. Maybe if you wish it to go away all the US scientists will become wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

What do you base that on? Wishful thinking a la WC. Maybe if you wish it to go away all the US scientists will become wrong.

---

Got Damn you are a stupid motherfucker. I just said that wind farms weren't affecting global warming/cooling. Are you really wanting to argue that position?

Strap it on Mr. USAA Janitor. Bring your mop.

lol idiots who dont want alternative energy sources, but cry over the burning of traditional methods like fossil fuels...

i see nothing wrong with wind turbines installed in areas thats not populated or environmental protected, just like ur solar power stations thats setup in the middle of the desert....

if ur crying foul over where its been installed etc, u have no business doing in that area in the first place, and how many times a year or in ur lifetime would u be visiting/traveling into that area...


just like the idiots down here who dont want wind power turbines installed on the coastline cause of some lame protective endangered bird species, the same bunch of idiots who cry foul over the increase energy bills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Got Damn you are a stupid motherfucker. I just said that wind farms weren't affecting global warming/cooling. Are you really wanting to argue that position?

Strap it on Mr. USAA Janitor. Bring your mop.

---

There were two parts to your post. There was a statement about wind farms would have no effect and what else? And do scientists have articles about the climate impact of wind turbines? Critical thinking, CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

There were two parts to your post. There was a statement about wind farms would have no effect and what else? And do scientists have articles about the climate impact of wind turbines? Critical thinking, CC.

---

I realize you have a lot of time to critically think about how clean the floors are at USAA while you are mopping them (assuming you REALLY have a job there) but please leave the heavy mental lifting to those that are capable of it.

BTW I noticed you ran away like a little bitch in the thread dedicated in you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I realize you have a lot of time to critically think about how clean the floors are at USAA while you are mopping them (assuming you REALLY have a job there) but please leave the heavy mental lifting to those that are capable of it.

BTW I noticed you ran away like a little bitch in the thread dedicated in you.

---

Really, I'm flattered from your desire to know all things Fuzzy. I understand but I hope you understand. I tell you what, like I said I can get you some T-shirts and to help you be able to afford it, I'll give you $5 off. I think that is more than fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Why don't you share your thoughts on the matter?

---

Fair enough.

I wonder if there has been any theoretical assessments on how removing this energy from the atmosphere affects climate. The speed of the air circulating over grasslands, forests, etc. all have an effect. Especially with moisture and temperature changes. We are removing kinetic energy from nature, that affects our atmosphere. We are not changing these levels by around a watt or so per square meter as claimed for CO2, but by hundreds of watts or more per square meter where these wind mills are.

For Manny to just blow off such a question is rather short sighted in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Got Damn you are a stupid motherfucker. I just said that wind farms weren't affecting global warming/cooling. Are you really wanting to argue that position?

Strap it on Mr. USAA Janitor. Bring your mop.

---

You shouldn't expect so much from him.

Science daily; Wind Farms Impacting Weather; Environmental Engineers Detect Turbines' Turbulence Effects:

Quote:

---

Based on computer modeling, researchers at Duke and Princeton universities found that wind mill-generated turbulence raised pre-dawn surface temperatures by about four degrees and resulted in drier soil conditions. Presumably, the surface warmth was largely the result of the mixed air preventing the settling of cold air at the surface, while the dryness reflected increased evaporation by the wind of soil moisture. This is not dissimilar to the more familiar experience of a windy night keeping temperatures from falling as low as might otherwise be expected and also drying out pavement made wet by an evening shower.

---

Meteorology News; Could Windmills Alter the Weather?:

Quote:

---

But a team of researchers from the University of Maryland have found that large-scale use of wind turbines as a power source may have an impact on our environment directly opposite that which they purport to minimize: Climate change.

---

Quote:

---

The greater the array of wind turbines, the more energy is removed from the atmospheric flow and the slower the ambient wind will travel. Slowing wind speeds by 5 or 6 miles per hour – while it sounds negligible, could have significant impacts on the large-scale atmospheric flow and yield consequences we do not yet understand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

not sure if serious....

---

I'm very serious. The velocity of air changes the absorption of land moisture. This can change the moisture content/rain patterns downwind, and surface heat, as latent heat values change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I feel dumber for just having read that last post by WC.

---

Did you have an epiphany, that you aren't as smart as you thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm very serious. The velocity of air changes the absorption of land moisture. This can change the moisture content/rain patterns downwind, and surface heat, as latent heat values change.

---

:lmao

Some things will never change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

lol idiots who dont want alternative energy sources, but cry over the burning of traditional methods like fossil fuels...

i see nothing wrong with wind turbines installed in areas thats not populated or environmental protected, just like ur solar power stations thats setup in the middle of the desert....

if ur crying foul over where its been installed etc, u have no business doing in that area in the first place, and how many times a year or in ur lifetime would u be visiting/traveling into that area...


just like the idiots down here who dont want wind power turbines installed on the coastline cause of some lame protective endangered bird species, the same bunch of idiots who cry foul over the increase energy bills

---

I don't think that this (at least this thread) is about people not wanting alt energy sources, only about the power lines to transmit the power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lmao

Some things will never change.

---

You come to laugh, at a topic you should be aware of, but offer nothing to back it up with.

You're right. Some things never change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

I don't think that this (at least this thread) is about people not wanting alt energy sources, only about the power lines to transmit the power.

---

Or the lack of distributing power to where it can be used.

AC power has dramatic limitations on how far it can be transmitted. The best solution in my opinion would be to build another DC intertie, near wind mills and to large cities. Anyone with excess power can add -power to it, and anyone needed power can tap off of it. DC doesn't have the same RF propagation losses as AC. It only has resistive and static losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I'm your huckleberry

i'd say that the change would be as infintesimal as as anything else we do.

---

Perhaps not anything but most things ........:tu

I suspect that your BBQ did more to change the climate than hundreds of wind farms ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Fair enough.

I wonder if there has been any theoretical assessments on how removing this energy from the atmosphere affects climate. The speed of the air circulating over grasslands, forests, etc. all have an effect. Especially with moisture and temperature changes. We are removing kinetic energy from nature, that affects our atmosphere. We are not changing these levels by around a watt or so per square meter as claimed for CO2, but by hundreds of watts or more per square meter where these wind mills are.

For Manny to just blow off such a question is rather short sighted in my view.

---

To be fair you do have an extensive history of taking up untenable positions, especially as it pertains to science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm very serious. The velocity of air changes the absorption of land moisture. This can change the moisture content/rain patterns downwind, and surface heat, as latent heat values change.

---

Wind is caused by pressure gradients across the globe no? This is in turn due to unequal heating if memory serves. Could you give the less informed an idea of how many wind farms we would need to change those pressure gradients by even one part in a trilion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Perhaps not anything but most things ........:tu

I suspect that your BBQ did more to change the climate than hundreds of wind farms ever could.

---

I seriously doubt that.

Now I agree with CC's statement that wind farms probably create no more change than other anthropogenic causes, but really now... Did you read either link I posted? I read several besides the two. The effects can possibly be even more than I thought they might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

To be fair you do have an extensive history of taking up untenable positions, especially as it pertains to science.

---

Really? Example please. I think if you read my wording of my positions, you will take back your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Wind is caused by pressure gradients across the globe no? This is in turn due to unequal heating if memory serves. Could you give the less informed an idea of how many wind farms we would need to change those pressure gradients by even one part in a trilion?

---

You want me to quantify this? My position is it makes a difference. I'm not claiming any particular amount. There would he a huge range could anyone even attempt to quantify it.

Ever study Fluid Dynamics? Think of the windmills as resistance/restrictions. This in turn reduces the volume of the air flow with the same delta-P. (pressure gradient with no change.)

Did you read the part of one article I linked about the turbulence vs. laminar flow? Do you know what laminar flow is? How turbulence changes things?

I don't know why I'm responding. It isn't as if you are disagreeing with me. You are just trying to get me to take a position I cannot protect. Why don't you instead just agree that my words have merit, instead of acting like you are?

---dp---

:lol fluid dynamics

Why don't you talk about refilling a parts bin or changing out a toilet? You know stuff that you actually know how to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

:lol fluid dynamics

Why don't you talk about refilling a parts bin or changing out a toilet? You know stuff that you actually know how to do.

---

I do understand fluid dynamics. For you to act as if it doesn't apply shows you clearly do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I do understand fluid dynamics. For you to act as if it doesn't apply shows you clearly do not understand.

---

So do you restock it yourself or do you have to fill out forms or otherwise have someone else do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So do you restock it yourself or do you have to fill out forms or otherwise have someone else do it?

---

I see you have absolutely nothing of value on the topic.

Typical!

Fluid dynamics if studied properly requires the knowledge of things like PDEs which the NS equation bases itself off of. You do not have the requisite knowledge for this. We have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the flow equations before when talking about the ocean currents before. I remember.

There are literally classes that go over just the NS equations as well as others for the underpinnings to get a good grasp on it. Now if you wanted to get any decent sort of proficiency at it you would need some training like that, there are certainly textbooks and the like that you can go through too.

We know that you did none of those things. Instead you read most likely just the wiki but perhaps a few links that you found off of wiki or a google search. Now you are regaling us with your EZ bake oven and if we are unlucky, napkin math pretending like you are in a position to understand things that take years to understand. You do this all the time and are known for it.

It is stuff like this that makes me mean to you. You don't have any clue wtf you are talking about but think throwing out wiki terms you can fake your way through it. Now tell me about how I am making assumptions, dimwit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Fluid dynamics if studied properly requires the knowledge of things like PDEs which the NS equation bases itself off of. You do not have the requisite knowledge for this. We have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the flow equations before when talking about the ocean currents before. I remember.

There are literally classes that go over just the NS equations as well as others for the underpinnings to get a good grasp on it. Now if you wanted to get any decent sort of proficiency at it you would need some training like that, there are certainly textbooks and the like that you can go through too.

We know that you did none of those things. Instead you read most likely just the wiki but perhaps a few links that you found off of wiki or a google search. Now you are regaling us with your EZ bake oven and if we are unlucky, napkin math pretending like you are in a position to understand things that take years to understand. You do this all the time and are known for it.

It is stuff like this that makes me mean to you. You don't have any clue wtf you are talking about but think throwing out wiki terms you can fake your way through it. Now tell me about how I am making assumptions, dimwit.

---

Assume as you wish about my knowledge. I don't mind because you don't matter.

I'm curious though.

How long and many sites did you Google to come up with that? It sure took you some time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

We have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the flow equations before when talking about the ocean currents before. I remember.

---

You never did get that right. You were arguing points that didn't apply, and I kept telling you that, but no... You wanted to argue surface dynamics when I was speaking of the thermocline included and the long period flow. Not the short period dynamics you kept going to.

You never get it right, and think you win, but you always punk yourself without realizing it.

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You never did get that right. You were arguing points that didn't apply, and I kept telling you that, but no... You wanted to argue surface dynamics when I was speaking of the thermocline included and the long period flow. Not the short period dynamics you kept going to.

You never get it right, and think you win, but you always punk yourself without realizing it.

---

I presented the UW study that modeled the cycle of oxygenated water through the thermal layers. They were using NS PDE functions and described the air surface interaction as a function of wind speed.

You said the ocean was like a big soda just fizzing with the warming drives CO2 argument. This had about as much insight as your input - input * efficiency = output stupidity. They use math, you open a coke.

You can posture all you like but we both know your full of shit as does everyone else including Manny who is laughing at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Really? Example please. I think if you read my wording of my positions, you will take back your statement.

---

I'd be bound to get a headache and you, unlikely to get a retraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You want me to quantify this? My position is it makes a difference. I'm not claiming any particular amount. There would he a huge range could anyone even attempt to quantify it.

---

Your question implied that the global climate could be adversely affected by this activity. If you're going there, I'll insist that you quantify the effect I pointed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Ever study Fluid Dynamics? Think of the windmills as resistance/restrictions. This in turn reduces the volume of the air flow with the same delta-P. (pressure gradient with no change.)

---

An untenable scientific position tbh, much like that which you claim to have never had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Did you read the part of one article I linked about the turbulence vs. laminar flow? Do you know what laminar flow is? How turbulence changes things?

---

No.Yes.Yes.

I am also quite certain that there is abundant laminar air flow between your ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't know why I'm responding. It isn't as if you are disagreeing with me. You are just trying to get me to take a position I cannot protect.

---

Negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why don't you instead just agree that my words have merit, instead of acting like you are?

---

Probably because I'm skeptical. Call me crazy if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I presented the UW study that modeled the cycle of oxygenated water through the thermal layers. They were using NS PDE functions and described the air surface interaction as a function of wind speed.

You said the ocean was like a big soda just fizzing with the warming drives CO2 argument. This had about as much insight as your input - input * efficiency = output stupidity. They use math, you open a coke.

You can posture all you like but we both know your full of shit as does everyone else including Manny who is laughing at you.

---

That's right, pick, choose, and mix things up. It's obvious you are clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Did you read the part of one article I linked

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

No

---

Then you are a waste of time like Fuzzy is.

so many disagree with you. are they all a waste of time on that account?

it's not like you ever refused to read something, or do your own homework, right? because we weren't worth your precious time to back up your own bs, when you find the time, unerringly, to put everyone else down all day long.

CC: CosmicCowboy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

so many disagree with you. are they all a waste of time on that account?

---

When they just disagree without bringing in any facts to back them up? Yes. I asked a question, then later searched and found the idea of my question had more validity than I thought it would. They fail to read any material, but just say I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mild Cobra

They fail to read any material, but just say I'm wrong.

---

where do they get off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

When they just disagree without bringing in any facts to back them up? Yes. I asked a question, then later searched and found the idea of my question had more validity than I thought it would. They fail to read any material, but just say I'm wrong.

---

Does the asinine position of wind turbulence from windmills affecting the climate even warrant a factual response? Typically, thoughts of ranging behaviors would act as a filter to prevent a question like that. If we were to round up all the outdoor fans, would they affect the climate? What about the aggregation of turbulence from Beagles wagging their ears? Stupid questions should never see the light of day if there were any rational filtering going on.

Filtering appears to be a novel concept to you.

If a turbine spins its blades in China, does it rain in New York???!!?!!?!?

:lol

This topic triggered a minor interest of mine, so I started doing a little searching. In post #6, I touched on the idea of HVDC. The thing with using HVDC power distribution is the distance capability. Our massive AC power distribution system is a nightmare. Once you go any appreciable distance, the synchronization of AC power starts diminishing. You don't have that problem with HVDC. The problem associated with HVDC is it is very expensive, compared to stepup/stepdown transformers and their associated components. There aren't many, but the US power companies have been building HVDC converter facilities that fix the phasing issues. In my opinion, more long haul HVDC transmission lines need to be built. There are over 20 HVDC systems in the USA, with I think 4 more being built. These The Hudson Project is expected to be complete this year. Others are out as far as 2017.

Of all of these in operation, most are just B2B converters. These are important as they allow exchange of electricity between unsynchronized grids. There are seven HVDC power line systems in operation, with the 8th scheduled to be online this year. This new one will be the third system to Long Island. The others are:

Pacific DC intertie
3,100 Megawatt from The Dalles, Oregon, to Los Angeles, CA.

Path 27
1,920 megawatts from Delta, Utah, to Adelanto, California.

CU Powerline
1,000 megawatts from Underwood, North Dakota to Rockford, Minnesota.

Square Butte
500 megawatt from Center, North Dakota to Duluth, Minnesota

Trans Bay Cable
400 magawatt from Pittsburg, California to San Francisco, California

The thing with HVDC is that a single standard could be used and tie all metropolitan and major sources together. The conversion stations are more costly than standard AC systems, but the benefits for long haul power can be justified for large wind and solar facilities. There is no phasing problems like there is with the numerous AC power grid systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

When they just disagree without bringing in any facts to back them up? Yes. I asked a question, then later searched and found the idea of my question had more validity than I thought it would. They fail to read any material, but just say I'm wrong.

---

lulz Fluid Dynamics.

Bernoulli is rolling over in his grave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

lulz Fluid Dynamics.

Bernoulli is rolling over in his grave.

---

If you say so Fuzzy.

I have a thought.

Why don't you tell me what you are assuming I am wrong about, so I can put your sorry ass in your place by proving you wrong.

Or...

Are you going to be as bad as Fuzzy and Chump?

Agloco.

Consider something.

I said I understand Fluid Dynamics. I never claimed to be an expert on the topic. What you are doing is similar to if someone tells you they are a good bowler, then you suddenly make fun of them for not having consistent 300 games.

Do you by chance see your arrogant, assumptive stupidity?

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Agloco.

Consider something.

I said I understand Fluid Dynamics. I never claimed to be an expert on the topic. What you are doing is similar to if someone tells you they are a good bowler, then you suddenly make fun of them for not having consistent 300 games.

Do you by chance see your arrogant, assumptive stupidity?

---

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

---

Do you live with your mommy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Describe the NS equation and give an example of a problem that it could solve.

---

I don't need to. It isn't a requirement to understanding the parts I do, or apply. You really should stop being such a stupid shit.

Why do you think it not possible to understand a concept without applying math to it?

You are a real dipshit if you believe that.

--dp--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I don't need to. It isn't a requirement to understanding the parts I do, or apply. You really should stop being such a stupid shit.

Why do you think it not possible to understand a concept without applying math to it?

You are a real dipshit if you believe that.

---

I wasn't asking you to do math. I was asking you to explain the formula that is the epitome of fluid dynamics. You just demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Well you do that just by writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by symple19

Do you live with your mommy?

---

Do you fellate farm animals? You might want to rephrase that btw. It's difficult to wade through ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I wasn't asking you to do math. I was asking you to explain the formula that is the epitome of fluid dynamics. You just demonstrated your lack of knowledge. Well you do that just by writing.

---

It's not necessary, hence, I'm not wasting my time for for fishing expedition.

How about instead, you tell me why I am wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not necessary, hence, I'm not wasting my time for for fishing expedition.

How about instead, you tell me why I am wrong?

---

You are wrong in saying that you understand fluid dynamics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You are wrong in saying that you understand fluid dynamics.

---

And how would you know?

Prove it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

And how would you know?

Prove it!

---

Prove it? Well your solution to the question of how a turbine would effect climate was on the basis of a generic wind energy number you pulled off a chart and the efficiency of the turbine. This is akin to you trying to describe the behavior of the ocean on the basis of a solubility chart. Now you are going to claim that I am making assumptions but you do the same simpleminded shit every time. We've been down this road before with you.

You are the one that needs to prove your knowledge and all you have proven so far is that you lack it and when pressed on it bluster and dissemble. If you do not understand field theory and multivariable PDE's then you do not understand fluid dynamics. Blathering about KE and efficiency tells me you are up to about high school physics.

So go ahead and claim that I am making assumptions and hide behind the claim that you don't have to understand the fundamentals. All you do is paint yourself as the same simpleminded fool as always.

Start with multivariable calculus. There are great tools you can use at stanford.edu to start. Then when you have a grasp of field operations, you can start looking into how FD is handled scientifically. Once you are comfortable with the theory try executing problems and solving them. You are not going to learn FD from google. What you are doing right now is akin to saying you understand physics because when you throw a ball it moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WC's understanding of FD

When you put something in the wind its going to block and change the KE of the wind . Turbulent flow makes swirlies! DERP DERP!! I will make the asinine assumption that the only things I need to consider are a scalar windspeed and a scalar efficiency so I can use the highest level of math I can demonstrate in simple arithmetic. I will use terms like kinetic energy and the names of the variables I found on google and maybe that will fool someone. Then when people point out that I am leaving out a whole bunch of stuff I will bullshit about them making assumptions. DERP!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Prove it? Well your solution to the question of how a turbine would effect climate was on the basis of a generic wind energy number you pulled off a chart and the efficiency of the turbine.

---

Liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

This is akin to you trying to describe the behavior of the ocean on the basis of a solubility chart.

---

I haven't done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Now you are going to claim that I am making assumptions but you do the same simpleminded shit every time. We've been down this road before with you.

---

Yes, and you always lose. I linked some information of studies, and there are several more I read that I did not link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You are the one that needs to prove your knowledge and all you have proven so far is that you lack it and when pressed on it bluster and dissemble. If you do not understand field theory and multivariable PDE's then you do not understand fluid dynamics. Blathering about KE and efficiency tells me you are up to about high school physics.

---

I have better things to do than prove my knowledge to you. You cannot argue against what I say and you want me to waste more time proving something you don't understand?

Wow... Just wow... Yopu are so lame...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So go ahead and claim that I am making assumptions and hide behind the claim that you don't have to understand the fundamentals. All you do is paint yourself as the same simpleminded fool as always.

---

Well, since you are not arguing against the supporting links I furnished, what am I to think? I even forget what was obvious of you assiming, and I'm not going to go back to refresh my memory. You simply are not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Start with multivariable calculus.

---

Why? Not needed. I maintain my contention because of supporting research already done by others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

There are great tools you can use at stanford.edu to start. Then when you have a grasp of field operations, you can start looking into how FD is handled scientifically. Once you are comfortable with the theory try executing problems and solving them. You are not going to learn FD from google. What you are doing right now is akin to saying you understand physics because when you throw a ball it moves.

---

Have at it.

You know, it is becoming so comical, watching you make a clown of yourself all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I can't prove it so I will just say I don't wnat to prove it and act like it's convincing.

---

I guess I am going to have to embarrass you once again by pulling up RG's pseudoscience thread because that is where your fizzing soda solubility chart stupidity is to be found.

You tried this same denial shit when you claimed you didn't say racist shit. I pulled up all that bigotry and posted it in the Martin thread and then you waffled and claimed it was out of context when what I did was put up your whole posts. You can't front around here because we all know how you operate. Old dogs don't learn new tricks especially when theyre dumb.

I have shit to do but when I get back i know the search terms to use and your soda and solubility chart ocean model will be dredged up for all to see.

Ocean modeled by solubility chart post:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458585

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...inSeaWater.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stupidity

Lets just take 5C at 34 psu. The value is 52.44. If we relate it to the carbon absorbed in the ocean for the ratio of 40,000 GtC total with 750 of it in the atmosphere, then we can say the ocean contains 39,250 GtC.

Now if the increase the entire ocean temperature was about 0.1 degrees, we can approximate change by calculating 1/50 the value of 52.44 - 44.13, or 0.1662. We would have an approximate decrease of equilibrium to 52.27 (5244 - 0.17).

Now this 52.27 is 99.68% of the other value, but 99.68% of 39,250 is 39,127. Now, for equilibrium, we have to force another 123 GtC of carbon, or about 60 ppm into the atmosphere.

That is with no added CO2 by man, and only a 0.1 C increase.

Of course, this will be inaccurate because most the ocean is colder and some is warmer than the 5C I used, but I just wanted to show you how little changes can make bug difference.

---

Ocean as a soda

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5458330

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by More stupidity

The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Liar.

I haven't done that.

You know, it is becoming so comical, watching you make a clown of yourself all the time.

---

Uh huh

Despite Conservative Attacks, States Continue to Realize the Benefits of Renewable Energy Standards

Though Congress has failed to enact a nationwide standard, policymakers at the state level have enthusiastically filled the void, with 29 states and the District of Columbia adopting hard targets for renewable energy production and another eight states setting renewable energy goals. Standards place an obligation on electricity-supply companies to reach set targets, while renewable energy goals are voluntary for companies—although states might incentivize a utility for reaching a set goal.


Those mandates have brought a wide range of benefits, ranging from robust clean energy economies to lower carbon emissions and improved public health. Since the beginning of 2009, eight states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York—have increased their standards, while three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—have established voluntary goals. Six other states—Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington state—have beaten back attempts to repeal their standards. Most of the states with renewable energy standards on the books are meeting or are close to meeting their interim targets.

Two conservative organizations looking to repeal state renewable energy standard policies are the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. These two organizations worked together to write model legislation—the Electricity Freedom Act—to roll back state standards. The policy, which ALEC’s board of directors adopted last October, argues that “a renewable energy mandate is essentially a tax on consumers of electricity that forces the use of renewable energy sources beyond what would be called for by real market forces and under conditions of real competition in generation resources.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...rgy-standards/

Fuck ALEC, Fuck Heartland, Fuck all VRWC.

Yes idiot. I posted the salinity/CO2 chart. That does not mean what you implied is correct.

I have to wonder.

Do you know the definition of "if?"

Fuzzy...

You have some serious mental issue. You either took the time to locate that, or had it saved just to use.

We can find a padded room for you...

'if' this solubility chart is true then the soda must fizz.

when you were talking about how you could envision the dynamics of what was going on, I immediately thought of the soda analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

'if' this solubility chart is true then the soda must fizz.

when you were talking about how you could envision the dynamics of what was going on, I immediately thought of the soda analysis.

---

Then once again, you are an idiot. My example of a soda going flat was for people who don't understand solubility of gasses in fluids. Almost everyone realizes soda holds less CO2 when warm than when cold. For you to think I literally meant the ocean acts like soda, to the degree soda responds... is so laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then once again, you are an idiot. My example of a soda going flat was for people who don't understand solubility of gasses in fluids. Almost everyone realizes soda holds less CO2 when warm than when cold. For you to think I literally meant the ocean acts like soda, to the degree soda responds... is so laughable.

---

No the issue then was that you dumb down the behavior of the ocean to the soda analogy. Now its whatever asinine model you failed to articulate. You were talking to RG about the soda when you wrote that stupidity. I just linked it so you can verify it. The only one that needs it dumbed down like that is you.

As was explained to you by presenting the UW study, it is an issue of alkalinity thermal layers and fluid dynamics an not your stupidity. Further it was demonstrated to you that the surface interaction of the CO2 diffusion is a function of wind speed not 'like a soda.' As I said then as I say now: you are too simpleminded to be able to grasp the functions that are used to describe these phenomenon so you fall back on simplistic analogies like 'the ocean is like a soda.' Well it's not.

I will go back to good old Bert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bert Russell

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

---

ie "the ocean is like a soda, going flat.' That explanation was for yourself and for no one else in that conversation. RG, Manny, nor me needed it. Just you.

Fizzy...

I'm not going to continue to argue every other thread that are far off from the threads theme. If you want to discuss that, bring it up in that thread, or make a new related thread to the topic. This thread is about power transmission and wind power. Talking about climate changes from the changes in wind patters is as far as it should go off topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Fizzy...

I'm not going to continue to argue every other thread that are far off from the threads theme. If you want to discuss that, bring it up in that thread, or make a new related thread to the topic. This thread is about power transmission and wind power. Talking about climate changes from the changes in wind patters is as far as it should go off topic.

---

Then you shouldn't call me a liar. I demonstrated that not to be the case.

WE got as far as input - input * efficiency = output. So expound on that some more for us. Hundreds of watts was your conclusion. Go explain to us how it will impact the climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Then you shouldn't call me a liar. I demonstrated that not to be the case.

WE got as far as input - input * efficiency = output. So expound on that some more for us. Hundreds of watts was your conclusion. Go explain to us how it will impact the climate.

---

The simple scale of it.

Texas now has a capacity of 11 GigaWatts of wind power. That is as much as 11 GW less energy to do the work that wind does for climate. It alters moisture and heat exchanges from what they would have been between the surface and atmosphere.